A detailed look at the game of Dungeons & Dragons and all things related

Monday, February 10, 2014

The Case for an Evil Campaign

This week I want to explore the issue of running
campaigns with “evil” characters. I have run a handful of these in the past but
I know many DMs who won’t touch it with a ten (or eleven) foot pole. Even some
players seem to be a bit wary of them. “What would be the point?” I was asked
once upon a time. What follows is my response to that question and a few
others:

What is an “evil”
campaign?

“Evil”, for the
purposes of D&D campaigns, should not be purely Chaotic Evil. This would
make every character a psychopath and the majority of the PCs and NPCs would be
dead by the third session. Instead, ask your players to take either Lawful Evil
or Neutral Evil alignment and think of themselves as greedy, opportunists who
are willing to work with the other PCs as long as it benefits them. In essence,
they are playing a similar character with similar goals as they would in a
“good” campaign but are willing to do things and say things that a good
character would not do, morally speaking. In many ways, I find it freeing for
the players to explore and play out their darker side. If you want some
examples on what this should look like, I draw inspiration from places like
“The Sopranos”, “The Godfather”, “Young Guns”, the works of Shakespeare, and a
few comic book/anime anti-heroes. Many of these stories have “evil” main characters
who are willing to work with partners/groups and willing to do anything to get ahead. Those are the
kinds of characters I want to see.

How do you keep an
“evil” group together?

The easy answer is to put them in a situation where they
all need each other to survive. A few options are to make them all part of the
same family, guild, secret society, or other organization that makes harming
each other very detrimental to their own cause. Despite how you set it up, the
DM should make it plain from the beginning that major backstabbing of any kind
will be just as harsh on the perpetrator as it is on the victim. This being
said, a few backhanded deeds and making other PCs look bad for the good of
another is actually encouraged, albeit in moderation. The unifying factor
however, should be the need to accomplish something that requires the skills of
everyone. Here are two examples of what I have done in the past:

1) The PCs were recruited into a thieves’ guild bent on
gaining complete covert control over a minor city. This was done via
assassinations, bribes, theft, intimidation, and countless skirmishes with the
other underworld organizations in the city including a rival thieves’ guild run
by Wererats.

2) A Menzoberranzan setting where all of the PCs were
nobles in a low-level house. The goal here was to work together, with some
minor backstabbing here and there, to improve the standing of the house and
eventually make it to the “top five”. This became one of the most intricate and
complex campaigns I ever ran and, despite the headaches, I enjoyed it
immensely.

What is the point?

Some folks would say that an evil campaign has no real
point because it is impossible to have an uplifting heroic ending. Well sorry
to burst your bubble but not every story has a happy ending and neither should
every campaign. Sometimes a disturbing or horrific ending is in order. Other
times, I challenge myself to end on a cliffhanger or on the edge of something
too huge for the PCs to continue. While this may not be as satisfying as a
traditional ending, it will certainly be memorable and keep your players
talking about the “what ifs” for weeks. Another option that I like is a linked
ending. What’s that you ask? A linked ending is where the ending of one
campaign kicks off the next. So, in this context, you finish off the evil
campaign with the “evil” PCs in complete control over their surroundings and
immediately jump into the next campaign with the players as “the heroes” that
must bring their previous characters down. It may seem like a huge set-up but
the pay-off will be well worth it.

Isn't this style of
play more difficult?

The short answer is, yes. I do not recommend that an
inexperienced DM attempt this type of campaign. I also do not feel that this
type of campaign is suitable for inexperienced players. More so than usual,
this type of setting can go sideways quickly. Plans can go wrong, PCs can blame
each other for failures, and without the safety net of character morals the
long knives can come out easily and frequently. And while the killing of a PC
by other PCs is not the end of the world, it can lead to big trouble. The last
thing you want is the campaign to become a bloodbath and evil turning in on
itself is such a cliché! An experienced DM will be able to blunt the worst of
these issues and experienced players will realize that they are stronger with
more allies around than enemies (most of the time).

Doesn't this type
of play strain player relations?

While it’s true that player co-operation is one of the
backbones of D&D, if everyone realizes what they are about to delve into
and are upfront that “this is just a game”, I think it is possible to avoid
major heartache. On the contrary, I think putting PCs in a more confrontational
setting will up their game and could bring to the surface some new found respect
for players who can outwit them. In the rare event that another player takes a
loss or even a death personally, an experienced DM will find a way to satisfy
that player’s need for revenge, preferably without another casualty. After all,
there are many fates far worse than death. (maniacal laugh)

In retrospect, the few “evil” campaigns I have waded into
were simultaneously challenging and rewarding and I intend to run more in the
future. But, if you are considering a journey to the dark side with your group,
just be aware that they are very high maintenance and require a firm hand to
keep from degenerating into a Kill Bill version of Survivor. Treat them well
and they will open up a whole new aspect to the game.

Have you ever experienced an “evil” campaign? What
happened? Leave a comment.